User talk:Ounbbl

January 2013
Hi and welcome to Wikipedia. You made some changes to New moon, most notably, from "lunisolar" to "luni-solar", that (because of the added hyphen) created one or more dead links. Don't worry, I have corrected the changes. You may wish to use the Sandbox to practice editing. Thanks again. -- Glenn L (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hebrew calendar article
I reverted the same changes that you made at Hebrew calendar. Understand that lunisolar calendar is a specific term of art for calendars, so articles that refer to the concept should reflect that.

Please also see Talk:Hebrew calendar for some additional notes on the edits you recently made there. Thanks for contributing!! StevenJ81 (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hum, you are bringing up an issue with a spelling (hyphenation). Interesting.


 * The word 'luni-solar' is a highly technical word, a compound one from 'lunar + solar'. The spelling 'lunisolar' (without no hyphen) does not easily gets registered the mind of the majority of people including wiki readers when their eyes are going through the word.


 * Though English dictionaries list that way, it has been historically always hyphenated. OED shows as early as 1691. Unhyphenated one shows up 1885. A lexicographer's choice is not always best or correct. Remember a lexicographer is not a king, nor a arbitrator who can tell what is right or wrong, but simply a collector to show how the words are used. The hyphenated form does nowadays appear often and it should be preferred. Ounbbl (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Fair point. My concern is that in Wikipedia, the article on such calendars is called "lunisolar" (unhyphenated), and references on other such pages (like in articles on East Asian calendars) are also unhyphenated.  So at this point that seems to be the canonical spelling within Wikipedia.  And I would venture that there is some trend—probably greater in North America than Britain—to drop hyphens anyway.  (Think co-operate vs. cooperate, and so forth.)


 * If you want to change this, I suggest finding an appropriate WikiProject (Time?) and asking what the project members think. If they agree, I don't mind supporting you on it, but I do not have the time or resources now to change a lot of references to hyphenated myself.  StevenJ81 (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Hebrew calendar. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.  Neil N   talk to me  22:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me add that I already asked you at Talk:Hebrew calendar to please limit remarks along these lines to footnotes, or to address the issue on the talk page. At this point, even if you get a reliable source, I strongly request that you address the topic on the article's talk page.  StevenJ81 (talk) 03:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Hi - bible.ca fails our criteria at WP:RS (and in any case the page I saw was just an image of a Bible, although that's irrelevant to the main issue). Doug Weller talk 13:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2020
Hello, I'm Epinoia. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Jesus, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. - Epinoia (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Satan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Book of Kings. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

January 2022
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Tetragrammaton, you may be blocked from editing. Doug Weller talk 20:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


 * As my talk page says, please do not email me unless there are privacy concerns. Did you count the occurrences or not? Please also use civil language and assume good faith. Doug Weller  talk 08:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see where you got the 48 figure, but not the 22. That doesn't matter. The sourced text clearly says "occurs 50 times if the phrase hallellu-Yah is included" and you deleted that with no explanation.  Doug Weller  talk 08:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Theophoric name
Looking at the warnings above and now this edit, I am not convinced you should be editing here. I don't know what you were thinking by deleting the link to the main article YHWH in the see also section just below the section heading, and you clearly don't understand why the article uses the Tetragrammaton in the examples. And that article clearly states "While there is no consensus about the structure and etymology of the name, the form Yahweh is now accepted almost universally." And since you edited the article, you should have read that. Am I right in thinking that you have a religious belief that says you should use "Yah"? Doug Weller talk 08:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what you are trying to tell me? Do you find something wrong in what I have edited. Deleting the link?? " ....The article uses the Tetragrammaton ..." Exactly what article are you referring to?
 * By the way, Yahweh was someone's invention with no historical and linguistic basis offered. Who says it is almost universally accepted? A revision of the [New] Jerusalem Bible to come out soon may not retain 'Yahweh'. If you care, looking for 'Yahuah' as the closest transcription to the Hebrew word. Ounbbl (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

March 2023
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 11:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Doug. Are you wiki inspector? You have been deleting my editing by adding a foot note on Brown–Driver–Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. I gave exact page numbers and download link for the Lexicon (both 1906 & 2000 eds) so that it does not have info as mentioned on wiki about 'יְהֹוָה‎ (qere אֲדֹנָי‎ Adonai) occurs 6,518x, and יֱהֹוִה‎ (qere אֱלֹהִים‎ Elohim) 305x. If you can, why don't you ask any scholar on Hebrew language and Hebrew bible, so that we all can benefit with accurate information. Than you. Ounbbl (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I will be back to see what has concerned you.

This was entirely unacceptable - you changed the text so that
instead of attribution to the author, it read "Someone wrote that according to Brown–Driver–Briggs,(who was that someone?) " However, this information is not found in the dictionary, either its original or second edition." which looks like no original research to me. Then you did basically the same thing, giving your opinion again.

March 2023
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Verifiability is a core Wikipedia policy. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Doug Weller talk 08:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)